One factor Israel may have considered in agreeing to the recent cease fire with Hamas was a possible shortage of Tamir missiles (used by the Iron Dome system to shoot down rockets). The problem was that Israel was not sure how many long (over 20 kilometers) range rockets (that could reach larger urban areas) Hamas had left. Hamas had managed to about a thousand rockets in a week, with most of them hitting unoccupied areas, or being intercepted by Tamir missiles. Israeli aircraft had made over a thousand bombing raids on Gaza, hitting hundreds of rocket storage sites. But the rockets appeared to be stored in small quantities all over the place. Israel won’t say what their count was of Hamas rockets destroyed by air strikes, but it was apparently less than the 12,000 rockets Hamas is supposed to have.[Emphasis added]

This has to factor in to any Israeli decision to go to war against Iran. Hamas (to the south) and Hezbollah (to the north) would certainly join in the fun — and quickly deplete Israel’s stockpile of Tamirs. At $90,000 per missile, that puts a real crimp in the IDF’s ability to keep Israeli civilians safe for the duration of a protracted conflict. And don’t think the Mullahs and jihadis don’t know it.

This reminds me of Nasser’s plan to strangle Israel in 1967. He put the massive Egyptian army in the Sinai, forcing the IDF to mobilize and suck thousands and thousands of productive men and women out of the Israeli economy. Eventually, Israel would have to settle on terms favorable to Egypt, as their economy imploded.

Of course, that little gambit got shot to hell when the IDF struck first and destroyed the Egyptian air force on the ground and beat their army back to the Suez in a lightning campaign.

It would seem that the Iranian/Jihadi alliance is trying the missile version of Nasser’s gambit. This time around, it’s civilian Jews being held hostage — along with the economy. The stakes are somewhat higher now, yes?

It will be interesting (ahem) to see how the Israelis raise them.

Click here to view the 25 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

25 Comments, 6 Threads

1.
Jason B

Iron Dome will only get better. That $90,000 price tag will drop precipitously over the next few years as the technology becomes simpler and easier to handle (and will be replaced by more expensive and newer tech).

Iron Dome is also really, really new. They don’t know how to actively put it into their strategic plans, because they only have long-term simulations on how it’ll work, even with the Hamas conflict. That means there will be alot of teething time needed to sort out the logistical details. Think of it like the early WW1 era tanks. Britain and France had no idea what to do with then in 1916 and 1917, and it wasn’t really until 1918 that they had a good idea how to utilize them (and ironically, the Germans figured it out just from looking at the Entente’s mistakes).

Also, Nasser’s plan in 1967 was to actually invade Israel. It’s in Michael Oren’s book Six Days of War. You don’t put that much military hardware in the field (and wreck your FY Federal Budget in the process) without planning to utilize them. They canceled it a few times because Nasser and his generals felt their logistics weren’t in place yet (which they were right about).

Anyways, I expect Israel and other countries to heavily invest in Iron Dome 1.0 and 2.0 and 3.0. It’s only a matter of time before the Arab and Muslim countries realize their 1950′s missile tech can’t bother Israel on any appreciable level.

Oh, and massive missile launches against Israel will be a geopolitical no-no from anyone other than Hamas/Hezbollah. Anyone want to bet how it’ll look if Egypt did that? Or Iran? That’s going to play bad even in the BBC.

Anyways, I expect Israel and other countries to heavily invest in Iron Dome 1.0 and 2.0 and 3.0. It’s only a matter of time before the Arab and Muslim countries realize their 1950′s missile tech can’t bother Israel on any appreciable level.

Not so much. There was an article that came out recently (thought I saw it here, but I can’t find it now) that was about the fact that Israel is making no Iron Dome sales to other countries. The point that their big clients made to them when they inquired is that if any other country experienced what Israel did (cross-border incursions, missiles and bombs hitting civilian areas, etc.), there would be a rapid invasion and large numbers of deaths of the enemy forces, until the insanity stopped.

There’s really no need for Iron Dome to be deployed by other countries. They simply don’t have their hands tied like Israel does.

Until Iron Dome can be scaled up to successfully handle ICBMs, it’s a one-off.

I read a similar article about the lack of Iron Dome sales. Those countries are being short sighted. In places like Afghanistan, US and NATO compounds get hit by mortar rounds and rockets from time to time. A system like Iron Dome can significantly reduce the effectiveness of those attacks. Does every country think it’ll be able to stop all such attacks?

And again, it’s really early in tech development for the Iron Dome. It sounds entirely scalable as a concept (and indeed, has improved over the past few years), and I don’t think Israel is considering putting it on the market just yet. It’s obvious leverage against Iran if they ever go to war with one another.

But when they do decide to sell it, it’s imminently useful to handle conventional military equipment (and maybe ICBMs, down the line). Complaining that it can’t handle ICBMs is like saying “man, I wish I had a gun in this knife fight, but I don’t want that revolver.”

Missile defense has many complicating factors. Interceptors are designed to handle incoming missiles of a certain speed which is directly tied to range. The US is developing a layered system with Patriot PAC-III for relatively close ranged threats, THAAD and SM-III for longer ranged threats and GMD for ICBMs. An ICBM moves too fast for a Patriot so you need a bigger interceptor.

Israel has their own layered missile defense architecture. Iron Dome is designed for short-range rockets (reportedly up to 270 KM). A newer system just recently tested is for longer range threats. For intermediate ranged missiles (up to 1000 miles or so), Israel has the Arrow II. This layered defense is expensive but effective.

Some people have commented that an Iron Dome interceptor costs from $50,000 to $90,000 (depending on which report you read) against a dumb rocket that may cost less than $1000. However, you need to consider the damage those rockets can do, defense is worth the cost. That $1000 rocket might destroy a building worth millions of dollars.

Complaining that it can’t handle ICBMs is like saying “man, I wish I had a gun in this knife fight, but I don’t want that revolver.”

I never said this, so don’t put words in my mouth. The point I was making is that nobody wants to buy Iron Dome. And it probably won’t be a marketable technology until it can be scaled up to handle ICBMs.

You’re arguing with the wrong person here. I’m merely pointing out that efforts to sell the Iron Dome technology internationally have fallen flat. If you don’t like that, take it up with Israel’s customer base.

Iron Dome could no more be scaled up to intercept ICBMs than a Cessna Caravan could be scaled up to replace the C-5 Galaxy. No one system is going to be practical against the entire range of missile threats. Iron Dome is designed for a specific threat. That threat dictates everything about the Iron Dome’s design and implementation to include radars, command and control, missile design and weapons deployment. Any country that needs to defend against short range (up to 250 KM) rocket attack should consider an Iron Dome type solution. The other potentially viable technology would be a laser system like Israel and the US experimented with some years ago (Tactical High Energy Laser) but using solid state instead of chemical lasers.

For longer ranged threat missiles, Israel is testing a new interceptor called David’s Sling. For even longer ranging threats, they already have the operational Arrow II. Should the threat increase, they can further upgrade the Arrow or buy SM-III or THAAD missiles. Iron Dome is proving quite capable and will likely get better before long. For even shorter ranged threats (mortars), they could buy our successful C-RAM system.

First, Israel will probably continue to utilize Iron Dome as a “proof of concept” technological idea. It’s not yet ready for the international market, so to speak. But it’s getting there.

Secondly. Iron Dome is basically a point defense system that relies heavily on computer calculations and coordination to counter-strike against missiles (or other kinetic objects) thrown at Israeli territory from short range. Expand your horizons, if you will. You’re thinking that Iron Dome can *only* be utilized in a very limited scenario. I can definitely see it utilized to protect RADAR and Nuclear sites throughout the world from airborne attacks, protect cities and bases from mid short-range attacks (or even longer ones, combined with the PATRIOT missile defenses), and even more mobile forces- imagine having Iron Dome in Kuwait for the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2002-2003.

Also, there are quite a few countries with major problems with localized military situations- India, South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Georgia, and Taiwan come to mind. And other places could use it to tie into their defense net for an augmented layering of defensive control. I can see England, Singapore, and Australia working with it for precisely that reason.

Suffice to say, there is alot of good usages for Iron Dome, provided that they improve on the technology and WANT to sell it. If anyone can reverse engineer the thing pretty easily, Israel’s going to make like Gollum in the Misty Mountains. But, considering that no one else has thought of it (and the US has Missile Shield, at best), it’s going to be interesting to see how their military hardware market shapes up in the next 5-10 years.

Don’t lay this at my feet. I’m not saying that it won’t work the way you’re saying. Israel is.

They’ve been actively trying to sell it. They were at an international arms show, and their booth was extremely busy. They had, according to the article, more traffic than anyone else. But when it came time for follow-up, nobody was interested. And the reasoning, according to the big clients they interviewed afterwards, was as I indicate above–nobody sees themselves as needing it.

Iron Dome solves, in its current incarnation, a problem that nobody else has. Period.

And I’m hard-pressed to believe that the various pitches outlined by you guys weren’t used. I happen to agree that Iron Dome handles more scenarios than just small-scale rockets being lobbed at civilian targets. But apparently nobody else agrees.

So, your argument isn’t with me. I’m only the messenger. The article (and I wish I could find it) makes it pretty clear that Israel is trying to sell Iron Dome. But nobody’s buying.

Given the ranges and technological disparities involved an EMP would be counterproductive. However, I think an announced
policy of using plain old 155mm tubes to level (and I mean level, leave no two stones standing on one another) everything within 1 mile of a launch site would work. Give the people of Gaza a choice: stop the attacks, leave for Egypt, or die.

Jeff, I disagree. Every vehicle, every TV, every cell phone, every rocket, every vending machine, every sophisticated weapon, etc. — in other words, everything electronic would be fried, permanently. It would take the better part of a year to replace them. One return to the 19th century might be enough to pacify the most murderous jihadi, especially when their families threaten them.

You’re seriously overestimating the effects of EMP. To get what you describe would require a low altitude nuclear explosion. There’s also the small problem that EMPs don’t respect national borders, meaning returning Gaza to the 19th century would do the same to Sderot.

A far better way to achieve the same effect would be to destroy the Gaza power plant and the two transmission lines from Egypt, then turn off the transmission lines from Israel. Why Israel exports energy to a nation they’re at war with is baffling.

EMPs are pretty much useless against Hamas or Hezbollah. They don’t have the high tech infrastructure that the US or Israel has. And, given the ranges that would be needed for such a device, it’d hit upon Israel, as well. So it’d be counterproductive.

If world opinion was busy, Israel would probably be happy to engage in a “continue this, and we flatten you” strategy, but since it probably won’t go away anytime soon, getting more and more precise with their surgical strikes (which limit the “collateral damage”), and limiting the ways in which the Palestinian terror groups can retaliate in any meaningful way, is probably more effective of exposing them for the death cults they are.

It always reminds me of the scene from Ghostbusters where Venkman says: “Yes, your honor, this man has no dick” only it’s Bibi saying that to the world, in relation to Hamas.

The difference over here is that I anticipate American companies producing the missiles for Israel, or (if Teh Won grows a pair) the US engaging in mass production of the suckers.

This analogous to how Austin Bay predicted when the US would invade Iraq. His logic was simple. The original (short) Afghan campaign used up pretty much every JDAM kit in inventory, and he knew how long it would take to build up to a stock of X thousand on hand; don’t recall the exact number. He said DoD should hit that number in March of ’03, and that’s when the balloon would go up.

hmmm. I cant help but notice that the dark overlords in Tehran don’t seem to have one of them there fancy ‘anti-missile’ systems while at the same time the Israelis seem to have jumped a generation in missile technology. In the future when more information becomes available, I think we might see this as very important.

I also notice that Cairo is, shall we say, living up to everything we expected of the Arab Spring, that once a new party is in charge their first move is always to outlaw all of the other parties. So, yeah, that happened.

The first thing that I found myself thinking is that Tehran and the rest of the Islamic world seems to be rather surprised at the effectiveness of “Iron Done” anti-missile system. The second thing I noticed is that once again, wars against Israel last about 8 days before the Islamic forces go squealing to the public stage for a “cease fire”. I get the feeling that the Islamist forces don’t seem to have much of a logistics chain. They seem to be unable to fight more than a block at a time for more than a week at a time. One wonders what would happen if they were forced to fight for, shall we say 30-40 days without a break?

1. I expect to see indrect Israeli Naval action to stifle Iranian trade in the gulf. I think a great deal of impact will be had from the occasional bulk cargo ship burning at the docks of Bandar Abbas. I dont expect this so much against oil assets as against food imports. We cant overlook the season of the year and the general poor state of the economy in Iran. A bulk cargo carrier here or there with unspecified ‘mechanical issues’ pushing back imports to Bandar Abbas might tip the balance.

2. What I fully expect to see happen is the Egyptians will restrict transit on the Suez canal. They might choose to do this with European ships already in transit, effectively holding hostage, which is their general style of warfare. Holding European assets ensures that their goals are met without inflaming the great Satan or general worldwide public rebuke.

3. In a crowded room, look for pockets of quiet. Right now, the pockets of quiet are Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Why?

4. For the first time in a very long time, Israel finds itself without an effective threat from Syria because well frankly the current rulers of Syria are busy right now saving their own skins and simply don’t have the assets or the organization to go all 1968 on Israel right now. Good timing continues to favor the Israelis.

5. I also think there is a rather shocking lack of threat from the Egyptian military in the south which deserves some looking into. What is the status of all those US Supplied Egyptian M1A1 Abrams tanks?